MR. ATKINSON: That may be so, but the Irish Government are not responsible directly or indirectly. MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is under a misconception, I think. He never asked me this Question. National Library, Dublin. MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the needs of the library, effect will be given to the frequently-expressed recommendation of the trustees of the National Library, Dublin, urging an increase of the staff. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE LAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The question of the sufficiency of the staff has been referred to a Departmental Committee, on which the trustees of the library are represented. Irish Licensing Question. MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are four separate Bills before the House seeking to stop for a limited period the issue of new licences in Ireland, and that the names on these Bills represent all shades of Irish opinion; and whether, in view of the present circumstances in Ireland, and the practically unanimous feeling in the country, the Government will agree to support one or other of the Bills in question so that it may become law during the present session. MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; I have studied the four Bills. Some legislation in the direction of these measures is advisable, but no contentious measure could be expected to pass this session. The Bill prepared by the hon. Member for North Dublin is, I am advised, not likely to arouse opposition. If that measure-it may be supplemented and modified-could be taken as an "agreed " Bill, it would no doubt pass. I am prepared to co-operate with those interested to effect this. MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolute unanimity among the Irish Members on this question. MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) was understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would himself take up the Bill. MR. WYNDHAM said he could not give an absolute pledge for a week or two, but he would be happy to give the Bill all the assistance in his power. Warburton Garryhinch Estate. MR. DELANY (Queen's County, Ossory): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date upon which the Land Court got control of the Warburton Garryhinch Estate, Queen's County, and will he state why offers to purchase their holdings made by or on behalf of the tenants have been declined. MR. WYNDHAM: The petition for sale was presented in June, 1885. The order for sale was made in respect of the life estate only of the owner. Consequently no sales can be carried out to the tenants under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts. Irish Loan Fund Board. MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed, in the last Report of the Loan Fund Board of Ireland, that the Board refer to a Report (No. 259) which was laid before Parliament in 1855, explaining the necessity for Loan Fund legislation of the character therein indicated; and, seeing that, in their Reports to Parliament since that time, the Board have called attention to the fact that effect had not been given to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1855, and have stated that such legislation is needed to enable them to ensure more efficient local management, and for the security of money invested in the societies, and the development of the system, whether it is the intention of the Government to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee. MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation dealing of the law advisers of his Majesty's with the Loan Fund System is un- Government has been drawn to the prodoubtedly required; but whether such ceedings. legislation should follow the lines recommended in a Report forty-seven years old is a matter open to great doubt. In any case, I cannot give a pledge to introduce legislation during the present session. MR. M'GOVERN (Cavan, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that Mr. R. H. Johnstone, Bawnboy,! County Cavan, is a member of the syndicate who recently purchased the Morley estate, and Grand Master of the Orangemen of the County of Cavan and City of Dublin; has he applied to or been recommended to the Government as a proper person to be appointed a resident magistrate; and, if so, have the Government any intention of appointing him to this position. MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge of the matters alleged in the first paragraph. The inquiries in the second paragraph relate to matters which are properly treated as confidential. Belfast Protestant Association. MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the speeches delivered in the Belfast Orange Ĥall on the 2nd instant at a meeting of the Belfast Protestant Association; whether he is aware that the chief speaker at the demonstration, a London clergyman, referred to the possibility of His Majesty the King being beheaded for Romanism, and alleged that His Majesty's present advisers are Papists at heart and are serving to their utmost the throne of Rome; and whether, in view of the effect of such speeches, the attention MR. WYNDHAM: A speech of this foolish character does not deserve and will not receive attention. to Irish County Court Sittings. MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent procure and lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of days in each year which each of the county court judges and recorders of Ireland have sat in court, extending over the past six years; and whether he will consent to embody in the said Return the number of revising barristers appointed for each county within the same period, and the number of days upon which they sat, and the total sum paid for this latter service, in each of the six years. MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of any precedent for a Return of the character mentioned in the first part of the Question, and the Government see no containing the information indicated in advantage in creating one. A Return the second part of the Question will be granted if the hon. Member will move for it in the ordinary way. Aughnacloy Threatening Letter MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Protestant farmer was on Friday week at Aughnacloy, County Tyrone, sent forward for trial to the Assizes on a charge of writing threatening letters to a Protestant clergyman; whether he has any official reports showing that town park lands in this neighbourhood are boycotted; and whether he can state the circumstances in connection with which the prosecution arose. MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative. I must decline to make any statement in answer to the last query, since the case, as the hon. Member himself points out, is sul» judice. MR. FIELD: Has the Irish Agricultural Department ever yet appeared as a complainant in any one of these cases? MR. WYNDHAM: I am under the impression that the Department is now taking action in one case. The hon. Member is aware that it can only act on the specific complaint of the party ag. grieved. Irish Agricultural Department. MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a list of names of officials in the Department of Agriculture, their religious persuasions, their positions before appointment, and their salaries. he is aware that an officer of the clerks' class at Limerick post office has been performing superintending duties efficiently for the last seven years, while the im ported officers were employed as writing clerks in the Postmaster's Inquiry Department; and will he say whether the senior clerk in the telegraph branch or an officer of lower rank was locally eligible for the appointment. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member is aware, a personal inquiry is now being made respecting the duties of the indoor staff at Limerick. The Postmaster General will see that the subject of the present Question is specially investigated and the result embodied in his reply upon the whole case. Crimes Act-Prisoners in Sligo Gaol. MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant as to the case of three men at present in Sligo Gaol. They were committed on the 30th April and are due to be released tomorrow but I am informed that they are not to be discharged until the 14th. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this case, and see whether these men are being illegally detained for twentyfour hours? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am in a little difficulty in answering, as it is not easy to say what time the House will desire for the consideration of the two Bills which I think ought to be read a second time before the holidays-the Budget Bill and the Loan Bill. The House is rather behindhand at present in the number of Supply days, of which only six counting days have so far been taken. I think, therefore, we ought either to have a counting day of Supply on Thursday next or on the Thursday after Whit Monday. I do not see how we can take it on Thursday next unless the Budget can be disposed of in two nights, and the Loan Bill read in an afternoon sitting. In that case I will move the adjournment for the holidays on Friday morning, and the House need not resume until the Monday week. But if the Finance Bill takes a longer time, and Thursday has to be given to the Loan Bill, I shall have to ask the House to come back on the Thursday after Whitsuntide for a Supply day. MR. DAVID THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): What Supply will be taken on the Thursday we come back? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask that that Question be deferred till tomorrow. I certainly have not received any encouraging intimation that the House will be prepared to follow the course I have suggested in regard to the business of this week. TRADE DISPUTES BILL. Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 30th May, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn. NEW MEMBER SWORN. George Toulmin, Esquire, for the Borough of Bury. FINANCE BILL. [SECOND READING.] (FIRST DAYS DEBATE.) Order for Second Reading read. *(2.40.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I wish, in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to make a statement in regard to the proposal to impose an extra penny stamp duty on cheques. When I first made the proposal to impose that extra stamp duty on ordinary cheques I did not appreciate to how very large an extent those cheques were drawn for very small sums by persons engaged in business, often of very small means, for the ordinary transactions of trade. When the matter was discussed, I think on the second evening of the Budget debate, I undertook to consider that question with a view to relieving small cheques. A few days later, in answer to a Question in the House, I made a suggestion for that purpose, which I am bound to say did not meet with a favourable reception. But I think, and it was probably through my own fault, it was somewhat misunderstood. I never imagined that the drawer of a cheque would take the trouble to visit a post office in order to obtain the rebate of a penny on a single cheque; nor did I anticipate that in the working of the proposal those who had drawn the cheques would act personally in the matter at all. I thought that the bankers, who do a great deal in many ways for their customers, would not do, and to apply periodically to a collector object to add this to what they already of Inland Revenue or a post office for a rebate on a number of cheques drawn by Commissioners of Inland Revenue were I may say that the perfectly prepared to make arrangements by which a banker's certificate as to the amount of rebate due to a particular customer might have been accepted in place of the presentation of drawn their customers. cheques. But when I came to consult the bankers on the question I found they were entirely opposed to any such proposal; and when, further, I put to them the other alternative, namely, that of having different stamps. upon cheques of different values-a penny on a cheque below £2, and twopence on other cheques -I found they considered, perhaps with reason, that this would add, in the case of large banks, so much to the work of their clerks that it would be in practice almost impossible. But I was very much more impressed by the very strong and widespread feeling which I found entertained in the country as to the interference with the ordinary transactions of business which would be involved by this additional stamp duty-an interference which was considered by very many persons to be far in excess of the amount which the duty itself would yield to the Exchequer. I also found that this feeling prevailed to so very large an extent that it soon became clear to me that I could not anticipate to receive nearly as much from the additional duty as I had proposed, owing to the large extent to which payment in cash would be substituted for payment by cheque, which gave some colour to the fear of the bankers that in that way it might even lead to a serious interference with their cash reserve. Therefore, as there is really no principle at stake in this proposal, and as the amount which I could expect to receive from it is comparatively small, I have decided not to press it further on the House. I may add that, of course, it will be necessary to consider whether, and, if so, in what way, the amount of revenue which it was anticipated we should receive from the proposal shall be levied; but I think, in existing circumstances, I may reserve any decision upon that subject until a future occasion. I beg to move. We on what principle the corn tax rests. should like to have some explanation as to that. We have been told that it is a tax which is to exhibit the readiness of the country to support supplies, but that it is not to fall upon anybody. That is not an explanation of the principle of the tax, and therefore I hope that in the course of the debate we shall elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what is the principle upon which this tax rests. I rise to move the Amendment which name on the Paper, viz. stands in my "That this House declines to impose Customs duties upon grain, flour, and other articles of the first necessity for the food of the people." I cannot help thinking that, perhaps, instead of being in the hands of one of the oldest Members of this House, it ought to have been placed in the hands of the youngest Member. He would deal with it in more eloquent numbers than any which I can command. But as he has not had the opportunity of putting down a notice on the Paper, I must deal with it as well as I can. This Amendment presents a very straight issue. It takes issue on what I will call the blackest spot in this Budget-its most glaring vice. When that has been disposed of, the main Question will be put from the Chair, and the House can then go into the general discussion of the Finance Bill. I wish that to be clearly understood. If this House, after the lapse of more than a generation, is prepared to maintain this tax upon the food of the people, I venture to say that its answer to this question will go far to determine the reputation of this Parliament, and, what is a good deal less important, the sentence which will be passed upon this Government. I will affirm that this is a tax which is bad in Motion made, and Question proposed, principle, and still worse in its application "That the Bill be now read a time." second *(2.45.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): I am sure the House will have been glad to hear the announcement so frankly made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, on consideration, he does not propose to insist on the tax which he intended to put upon cheques. I wish he had gone further, and had taken off another tax. He has said that the cheque tax rested upon no principle. I should like to know and in its consequences. There are |